00108531

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



F

LEISCHER

S

TUDIOS

, I

NC

.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.No. 09-56317A.V.E.L.A., I

NC

., DBA Art &D.C. No.Vintage Entertainment Licensing2:06-cv-06229-



Agency; A

RT

-N

OSTALGIA.COM

, I

NC

.;FMC-MANX O

NE

X M

OVIE

A

RCHIVE

, I

NC

.;OPINIONB

EVERLY

H

ILLS

T

EDDY

B

EAR

C

O

.;L

EO

V

ALENCIA

,

Defendants-Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of CaliforniaFlorence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedNovember 2, 2010Pasadena, CaliforniaFiled February 23, 2011Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Susan P. Graber,Circuit Judges, and Richard Mills,Senior District Judge.*Opinion by Judge Wallace;Dissent by Judge Graber

*The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge forthe Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

2765

COUNSEL

Robert P. LoBue (argued), Gloria C. Phares, A. Leah Vickers,Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NewYork, and Rex S. Heinke, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & FeldLLP, Los Angeles, California, for appellant Fleischer Studios,Inc.Douglas D. Winter (argued), The Ball Law Firm, LLP, LosAngeles, California, for appellees A.V.E.L.A., Inc., DBA Art& Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency, et al.

OPINION

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:This appeal stems from the district court’s summary judg-ment dismissing Fleischer Studios, Inc.’s (Fleischer) copy-right and trademark infringement action. The district courtruled that Fleischer held neither a valid copyright nor a validtrademark in the Betty Boop cartoon character and thuslacked standing to sue. Fleischer appeals. The district court

2768 F

LEISCHER

S

TUDIOS

v. A.V.E.L.A., I

NC

.

had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and ourjurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

I.

Betty Boop “combined in appearance the childish with thesophisticateda large round baby face with big eyes and anose like a button, framed in a somewhat careful coiffure,with a very small body . . . .”

Fleischer Studios v. Ralph A.Freundlich, Inc.

, 5 F. Supp. 808, 809 (S.D.N.Y. 1934). BettyBoop was the creation of Max Fleischer, then head of Fleis-cher Studios, Inc. (Original Fleischer). Beginning in 1930,Original Fleischer developed a number of cartoon films fea-turing Betty Boop. For a time, Original Fleischer licensed theBetty Boop image for use in toys, dolls, and other merchan-dise. Approximately ten years after creating her, OriginalFleischer abandoned Betty Boop and sold its rights to both hercartoons and her character. Soon after, in 1946, OriginalFleischer was dissolved.Max Fleischer’s family attempted to revive the Fleischercartoon business in the early 1970s. The family incorporatedits new entity under the same name as Original Fleischer andattempted to repurchase the intellectual property rights to theBetty Boop character. To be clear, Fleischer, the plaintiff inthis action, is a distinct and separate entity from the nowdefunct Original Fleischer which first owned Betty Boop.Fleischer believes that its intellectual-property-rights pur-chases have made it the exclusive owner of the Betty Boopcharacter copyright and trademark. Based on this belief, Fleis-cher licenses the Betty Boop character for use in toys, dolls,and other merchandise. This merchandise has reached such ahigh level of popularity that even drug dealers have beenknown to use it.

See United States v. Lakoskey

, 462 F.3d 965,971 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A search warrant was issued, and thepackage was opened pursuant to that warrant on January 26,2004. The package contained a large ceramic Betty Boop doll,

2769F

LEISCHER

S

TUDIOS

v. A.V.E.L.A., I

NC

.